The plaintiffs argued that the law was overly vague and that it violated the First (i.e. free speech/press) and Fifth (i.e. due process) Amendments.

Forrest agreed, and also explained to the government that "court decisions ... enjoining enforcement of overly broad or vague statutes may apply generally ... [and] may not be limited to the parties to the action."

She states that the cases the government cites to support its interpretation of the order are "inapposite" (i.e. not relevant), whereas the plaintiffs successfully argued that section 1021 (b)(2) "may imperil expressive activities generally and the due process rights of anyone engaged in similar conduct."

Forrest restated the fact that there is a "strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."